Simply put, the S65 is just not as good as an engine as the 5.0. It makes less power, substantially less torque, can run on cheaper fuel, gets better gas mileage

It's a SMALLER engine . And it makes more power. It's a much more sophisticated (and expensive) engine, but yes, the downside is all those individual butterflies are not fuel efficient, but gives you unmatched throttle response. And it has a totally different approach of making power; either you like it or you don't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdgamble

I have a Honda Accord for my commute, and while I don't mind driving it, I'd definitely rather be seen in the M3.Anyone with a nice car who denies this is full of sh*t.

Speak for yourself man. I much rather DRIVE the M3, yes. I drive an Accord during the week so I'm not 'seen' on the M3 (I have my reasons) . You just defined yourself as a snob .

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave07997S

yet in 2013 or 2014 Ford will release the new Mustang and it won't be based on the retro stuff we have today and it will finally put the SRA out to pasture where it belongs.

Until then I'm not interested in considering one at any price, because it looks like crap to me, inside and out. Just look at the gauges. And the driving position. And seats. And everything else. I HATE cheap retro crap; it only shows manufacturers are still living in the past, and can't design/build something nice. I have to give Ford kudos for finally entering the 21st century in engine design , but they still need to catch up with the rest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gthal

3. IMO, the M3 and Mustang will be RARELY cross shopped other than by some track enthusiasts or those whose budget is stretched by the M3. If you can comfortably afford the M3 and like the brand, the Mustang won't even be on your radar.

I think you hit the nail in the head for 99%+ of GT buyers. And the test is simple: if you could get a fully-loaded GT or M3 for the same price, which one would you choose? Enough said.

I just want to comment on something nobody has picked up yet. There're all kinds of car enthusiasts: brand enthusiasts (BMW, Ford, etc), model enthusiasts (Vette, M3, Mustang), and driving enthusiasts (driving for the pleasure of driving, whatever it is). Furthermore, each kind has a different bias, be it performance, modifications, racing, engine type, win car show trophies, or a combination of the above (and more). It's hard to describe, but you get my point, which is different kinds of enthusiasts (and there're DOZENS of combinations) will rarely agree on which car is better AND the reasons why .

Having said the above, I'm a driving enthusiast with a NA V8 6MT bias (NA 6MT F6 is 2nd), without regard of price, brand, performance above a certain level (400HP is enough), or anything else. As such, the M3 is IMMENSELY more satisfying to drive than the GT 5.0. And that wouldn't change even if the GT cost $100K; that's what I mean by 'driving enthusiast'. I don't care if it's a bit quicker, brakes a bit shorter, or whatever else; it's the TOTAL PACKAGE. The M3 has all the perfornance I need, so anything above is totally irrelevant to me. And by the same token, the M3 is more satisfying to drive than other cars costing much more. No need to spend anything more than an M3 if you're like me. My bottom line is this: The Mustang drives like a truck by comparison, and that's without even considering its looks, which are a deal-breaker to me at any price. So there you have it folks. I expect very few to agree with me, but that's the way it is. We all like different things, even when we all are considered 'car enthusiasts'. Hope I didn't offend anybody .

I'm a driving enthusiast with a NA V8 6MT bias (NA 6MT F6 is 2nd), without regard of price, brand, performance above a certain level (400HP is enough), or anything else. As such, the M3 is IMMENSELY more satisfying to drive than the GT 5.0. I don't care if it's a bit quicker, brakes a bit shorter, or whatever else; it's the TOTAL PACKAGE. The M3 has all the perfornance I need, so anything above is totally irrelevant to me.

The Mustang drives like a truck by comparison

All evidence to the contrary. I think you're letting your obvious brand bias lead you. If Randy Pobst, who I think we can all agree is much more of a driver than any of us will ever even come close to being, says that the GT is only a set of good shocks away from equalling, or besting, the M3 at roughly half the cost then the GT IS the total package.

Quote:

and that's without even considering its looks, which are a deal-breaker to me at any price.

THIS is the real reason you don't like it, not it's performance, real or perceived. The GT simply doesn't have the "status" that the M3 does. TBH, if the Mustang was available in a sedan form and kept all of its performance I'd probably have gone that way and pocketed a huge amount of money and had upgrade parts that are more plentiful and much less expensive to boot. Don't even get me started on how much I almost went with the GT500 over the M3. My desire for a performance sedan is the only thing that kept me in an M.

No IRS for the Boss, but if the race car is any indication it doesn't really need it to be a good track car. Granted, the IRS has benefit on the road where things aren't nearly as smooth, but on a track the live axle will be adequate.

I agree this is going to be interesting to watch. The M3 is going to have its hands full against the standard Boss 302, nevermind the Leguna Seca edition.

Bummer on the IRS but I'm still looking forward to the comparo. Makes me really wonder what the next Mustang will do performance-wise.

All evidence to the contrary. I think you're letting your obvious brand bias lead you. If Randy Pobst, who I think we can all agree is much more of a driver than any of us will ever even come close to being, says that the GT is only a set of good shocks away from equalling, or besting, the M3 at roughly half the cost then the GT IS the total package.

THIS is the real reason you don't like it, not it's performance, real or perceived. The GT simply doesn't have the "status" that the M3 does. TBH, if the Mustang was available in a sedan form and kept all of its performance I'd probably have gone that way and pocketed a huge amount of money and had upgrade parts that are more plentiful and much less expensive to boot. Don't even get me started on how much I almost went with the GT500 over the M3. My desire for a performance sedan is the only thing that kept me in an M.

I agree with the top part wholeheartedly re:Pobst....Also, Foosh is no fanboi either (has owned countless BMWs, Porsche, Z06 and most recently E93M3) and trust his opinion and analysis of the GT as well.

You may be a little off base on the second part about the "looks". I don't know if it status that he was talking about.Perhaps it is.... I don't know. I, personally dont give a rat's ass about status and think the car looks good from every angle except the rear...still not sold on the rear tail light design/shape.

It will be fun to see how well they do in the reliability department over the next couple of years.

You and I have been around this forum for a good while. I read your lengthy essay above, and all I can say is you have no clue what you're talking about in this case.

More claimed power in S65, yes, 2hp and 100 ft lbs less torque. "Drives like a truck," you're out to lunch.

Have you even driven a 2011 5.0? It's not the same car it was a few years ago. The best you can objectively say is that the are approximately equal performers. As for what is more satisfying, that gets a little more subjective, but having just climbed out of an M3, I find the '11 5.0 more satisfying.

While the 5.0L has a larger displacement, it's 15lbs lighter than the S65. As much as I absolutely love the S65 in my M3, if I had to choose between a 5.0L or the 4.0L in the M3, there is little doubt I would go with the 5.0.

And on the technology of Ford engines just now getting into the 21st century, Ford launched their 4.6L DOHC in 1991. By 1997, all ford engines were DOHC with variable timing. Most of the European DOHC engines began life in the late 80's so it's not like Ford was decades behind the Europeans, more like just a couple of years. GM and Chrysler however are still churning out SOHC pushrod motors, minus the Northstar which hasn't been nearly as successful as the Ford Modular engine and is due to be phased out next year.

Also of note, Ford is partnered with Getrag to produce DCT transmissions (Getrag produces the M3 tranny) and this years Focus, Fusion, and Fiesta have DCT trannys from Getrag. I would hedge a bet that the 2014 Mustang will have a DCT tranny similar to the M3's.

Also since Lincoln has recommitted to a RWD sports sedan/coupe, we may see a Ford 5.0L N/A and Supercharged version to compete with the M3 around 2014, with DCT, EDC (or air ride), and multiple modes of sport, dynamic, and comfort. A little history, the Mark VIII which came out in 1992 had dynamically controlled air ride and a 300hp 4.6L DOHC engine. It was one of the best cars at that time, though heavy, it was a phenominal car.

I agree with the top part wholeheartedly re:Pobst....Also, Foosh is no fanboi either (has owned countless BMWs, Porsche, Z06 and most recently E93M3) and trust his opinion and analysis of the GT as well.

You may be a little off base on the second part about the "looks". I don't know if it status that he was talking about.Perhaps it is.... I don't know. I, personally dont give a rat's ass about status and think the car looks good from every angle except the rear...still not sold on the rear tail light design/shape.

It will be fun to see how well they do in the reliability department over the next couple of years.

I agree about Foosh but my reply was directed at elp_jc. By "status" I meant the perceived status, or public opinion if you will, and it appears that elp thinks the Mustang doesn't live up to the M3 based on it's looks and "status."

I'm pretty much the same as you on the cosmetics. The rear is iffy and I hate the antenna. What is this, 1985???

While the 5.0L has a larger displacement, it's 15lbs lighter than the S65. As much as I absolutely love the S65 in my M3, if I had to choose between a 5.0L or the 4.0L in the M3, there is little doubt I would go with the 5.0.

And on the technology of Ford engines just now getting into the 21st century, Ford launched their 4.6L DOHC in 1991. By 1997, all ford engines were DOHC with variable timing. Most of the European DOHC engines began life in the late 80's so it's not like Ford was decades behind the Europeans, more like just a couple of years. GM and Chrysler however are still churning out SOHC pushrod motors, minus the Northstar which hasn't been nearly as successful as the Ford Modular engine and is due to be phased out next year.

Also of note, Ford is partnered with Getrag to produce DCT transmissions (Getrag produces the M3 tranny) and this years Focus, Fusion, and Fiesta have DCT trannys from Getrag. I would hedge a bet that the 2014 Mustang will have a DCT tranny similar to the M3's.

Also since Lincoln has recommitted to a RWD sports sedan/coupe, we may see a Ford 5.0L N/A and Supercharged version to compete with the M3 around 2014, with DCT, EDC (or air ride), and multiple modes of sport, dynamic, and comfort. A little history, the Mark VIII which came out in 1992 had dynamically controlled air ride and a 300hp 4.6L DOHC engine. It was one of the best cars at that time, though heavy, it was a phenominal car.

DCT will be nice option on the mustang. lets just hope they switch their paddle-shifter in the SHO, for regular working ones.

DCT will be nice option on the mustang. lets just hope they switch their paddle-shifter in the SHO, for regular working ones.

I test drove the SHO for kicks. I'm sure i could get used to the paddle shifters, but the thought of a transverse motor mount gave me the willys. It did have a computer distributing the torque so it didnt have that strong front wheel drive feel to it, but the steering still felt artificial. Lots of power though. But for just a little more I think i'd prefer a less optioned 335xi or audi S4. If it didn't have that crappy transverse configuration, it would be a real competitor for less money.

I test drove the SHO for kicks. I'm sure i could get used to the paddle shifters, but the thought of a transverse motor mount gave me the willys. It did have a computer distributing the torque so it didnt have that strong front wheel drive feel to it, but the steering still felt artificial. Lots of power though. But for just a little more I think i'd prefer a less optioned 335xi or audi S4. If it didn't have that crappy transverse configuration, it would be a real competitor for less money.

More power isn't going to fix the problems Scoobe mentioned. In fact, it will probably make them worse, if anything. Scoobe has mentioned a possible new RWD platform for Lincoln in the past, and that can't come soon enough, IMHO. If Ford want's to sell four door cars to enthusiasts, they need to get products like this on the market.

__________________

A gen-u-ine BMW eff-eight-zero with them tandem clutches in the transmission and that dad gum sun roof on the top-a da cawr.

More power isn't going to fix the problems Scoobe mentioned. In fact, it will probably make them worse, if anything. Scoobe has mentioned a possible new RWD platform for Lincoln in the past, and that can't come soon enough, IMHO. If Ford want's to sell four door cars to enthusiasts, they need to get products like this on the market.

true FWD bias AWD needs to go, but at least it will make it a better competitor.
The SHO doesn't put out bad numbers, its actually a pretty descent performer.
some of the engineers of the SHO said that the AWD could transfer 100% of the power to the rear, maybe with more HP at their disposal they could utilize this claim.

I never troll other sites, but I do like to read what other car people have to say about different models. Sometimes the fan boys run rampant and it is pretty comical.

I had time to kill and thought this article would have the bmw crowd all up in arms, but I have to say, you guys have it together over here. I was honestly amazed at how many people actually believed ford did a good job and like the car, even if they would not buy one themselves. There was very little hatin just because the mustang is not a bmw. And you guys do a great job at policing BS info and keeping people honest.

Sad to say, the mustang forums I visit are way more biased and fan boyish than you guys. Its a refreshing change from so many other sites (camaro, cough*mustang*cough, challenger.)

While the 5.0L has a larger displacement, it's 15lbs lighter than the S65. As much as I absolutely love the S65 in my M3, if I had to choose between a 5.0L or the 4.0L in the M3, there is little doubt I would go with the 5.0.

And on the technology of Ford engines just now getting into the 21st century, Ford launched their 4.6L DOHC in 1991. By 1997, all ford engines were DOHC with variable timing. Most of the European DOHC engines began life in the late 80's so it's not like Ford was decades behind the Europeans, more like just a couple of years. GM and Chrysler however are still churning out SOHC pushrod motors, minus the Northstar which hasn't been nearly as successful as the Ford Modular engine and is due to be phased out next year.

Also of note, Ford is partnered with Getrag to produce DCT transmissions (Getrag produces the M3 tranny) and this years Focus, Fusion, and Fiesta have DCT trannys from Getrag. I would hedge a bet that the 2014 Mustang will have a DCT tranny similar to the M3's.

Also since Lincoln has recommitted to a RWD sports sedan/coupe, we may see a Ford 5.0L N/A and Supercharged version to compete with the M3 around 2014, with DCT, EDC (or air ride), and multiple modes of sport, dynamic, and comfort. A little history, the Mark VIII which came out in 1992 had dynamically controlled air ride and a 300hp 4.6L DOHC engine. It was one of the best cars at that time, though heavy, it was a phenominal car.

The Fusion isn't using a DCT type tranny..its a standard auto with select shift capability, but no paddles.